February 17, 2006

A second great current of change was to be found in the slow decay of the religious spirit under the impact of the skeptical, inquiring, humanist views of the Italian Renaissance. The world of Today elbowed aside the world of Tomorrow, and as life on earth became more important, so did the notion of material standards and ordinary comforts. Behind the change in religious tolerance was the rise of Protestantism, which hastened a new attitude toward work and wealth. The Church of Rome had always regarded the merchant with a dubious eye and had not hesitated to call usury a sin. But now this merchant was every day climbing in society, now that he was no longer a mere useful appendage but an integral part of a new kind of world, some reevaluation of his function became necessary. The Protestant leaders paved the way for an amalgamation of spiritual and temporal life. Far from eulogizing the life of poverty and spiritual contemplation, as separate from worldly life, they preached that it was pious to make the most of one's God-given talents in daily business. Acquisitiveness became a recognized virtue -- not immediately for one's private enjoyment, but for the greater glory of God. From here it was only a step to the identification of riches with spiritual excellence, and of rich men with saintly ones. [p.35]

Obviously, this is still the dominant philosophy in mainstream religions today and Catholics are fully on board. After all, some of that usury keeps the doors open. As I've stated before, it is my opinion that usury -- any interest charged -- must be eliminated if we are to reverse our destructive course. I had a casual acquaintance who I believe to be religious tell me that he thought that usury was charging interest greater than 10%. Is this the position of his religion? If so, is there some sort of floating rate?

The new philosophy [one emphasizing commerce as the great source of national vitality] brought with it a new social problem: how to keep the poor poor. It was generally admitted that unless the poor were poor, they could not be counted on to do an honest day's toil without asking for exorbitant wages. [p.40]

The results are in. Society has succeeded admirably in this task.

But the trouble with Physiocracy was that it insisted that only the agricultural worker produced true wealth because Nature labored at his side, whereas the manufacturing worker merely altered its form in a "sterile" way. [p.49]

In a world of depleted fisheries and other natural resources, we may well return to this position.

But [Adam] Smith was above all a realist. In the very long run, he saw that a growing population would push wages back to their "natural" level. When would that time come? Clearly, it would arrive when society had run out of unused resources and introduced as fine a division of labor as possible. In a word, growth would come to an end when the economy had extended its boundaries to their limits, and then fully utilized its increased economic "space."

But why could not that boundary be further expanded? The answer is that Smith saw the all-important division of labor as a once-for-all, not a continuing process. As has been recently pointed out, he did not see the organizational and technological core of the division of labor as a self-generating process of change, but as a discrete advance that would impart its stimulus and then disappear. Thus, in the very long run the growth momentum of society would come to a halt -- Smith once mentions two hundred years as the longest period over which a society could hope to flourish. Thereafter the laborer would return to his subsistence wages, the capitalist to the modest profits of a stable market, and the landlord alone might enjoy a somewhat higher income as food production remained at the levels required by a larger, although no longer growing, population. For all its optimistic boldness, Smith's vision is bounded, careful, sober -- for the long run, even sobering. [p.67]

Today's situation is certainly sober. How do we address this reality in a comprehensive way?

They [the classical economists] saw the world in terms of individuals who rationally sought to better their own self-interest. Sometimes, as with Malthus's hopelessly multiplying laboring classes, brute human nature got the upper hand, but by and large mankind was depicted as a collection of reasoning beings. In the competitive struggle some rose to the top and some sta[r]ved at the bottom, and those who were fortunate or sagacious enough to prosper quite naturally took advantage of their fortune to minimize their labors. It was all very simple and quite reasonable.

But such a view of mankind made little sense to Veblen. He was not at all sure that the force that bound society together was the interplay of rationally calculated "self-interest," and he was not even wholly convinced that leisure was in and of itself preferable to work. His readings had introduced him to the ways of little-noticed peoples: the American Indians and the Ainus of Japan, the Todas of the Nilgiri hills and the bushmen of Australia. And these people, in their own simple economies seemed to lack a leisure class entirely. Even more striking, in such communities where the price of survival was labor, everyone worked, whatever his task, without feeling demeaned by his toil. It was not considerations of profit and loss that provided the positive drive of these economies, but a natural pride of workmanship and a parental feeling of concern for the future generations. [p.230]

This is obviously the antithesis of the "mine"ful culture that dominates today in the "developed" world.

But although the leisure classes [in certain societies] took without rendering any productive service in return, they did so with the full approval of the community. For these societies were not only rich enough to be able to afford a nonproductive class, but aggressive enough to admire them; far from being regarded as wasters or spoilers, those who rose to the leisured ranks were looked up to as the strong and the able. [p.231]

I think that most would agree that this is the prevailing attitude in the "rich" countries today. So the question is: what will be the tipping point to a mindset where we no longer think that we are rich? Will it be a market crash caused by the Boomer demographic fundamentals?

The workers do not seek to displace their managers; they seek to emulate them. [p. 233]

Again, what will be the tipping point to a mindset where we no longer admire the managerial class? When?

...but the Harrimans, Morgans, Fricks, and Rockefellers were far more interested in the manipulation of huge masses of intangible wealth than in the humdrum business of turning out goods. [p.237]

The Bush family is a contemporary example of this type of manipulation and the majority of the population does not seem to have a problem with their lack of productive activity.

In other words, the whole gain in technological unification [occurring during the time of the Robber Barons] was subverted to the end of maintaining a structure of make-believe finance. [p.238]

The same is true today but a majority of the public is complicit due to their ownership of stock. Very few in power have an incentive to call attention to the emperor's lack of clothes.

He [Thorstein Veblen] looked back on the days at [the University of] Chicago and summed up the perversion of centers of learning into centers of high-powered public relations and football in the most stinging commentary ever penned on the American university: The Higher Learning in America. While it was still in composition Veblen said, half-seriously, that it would be subtitled "A Study in Total Depravity." [p.241]

Some recognized the "depravity" earlier than others. It should be noted that the University of Chicago was initially funded by the Robber Barons. This may help explain the big business bias of the economics department that exists even today.

In the sequence of cultural evolution the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership. This is necessarily the case, for these two institutions result from the same set of economic forces. In the inchoate phase of their development they are but different aspects of the same general facts of social structure. [p.22]

But as fast as a person makes new acquisitions, and becomes accustomed to the resulting new standard of wealth, the new standard forthwith ceases to afford appreciably greater satisfaction than the earlier standard did. [p.31]

As increased industrial efficiency makes it possible to procure the means of livelihood with less labour, the energies of the industrious members of the community are bent to the compassing of a higher result in conspicuous expenditure, rather than slackened to a more comfortable pace. [p.111]

Remember, this book was published in 1899. Those who predicted that we would have more leisure as productivity improved were unaware of this point or hoped that we would have developed beyond it. I believe that the time is right for a new class that incorporates leisure, but is not defined by leisure. An integral class that balances leisure with other goals including intellect, spirituality, etc. The wellness balance/wheel that wellness proponents describe.

This post touches on almost every category that I have formerly established. I am sometimes asked what I do. Maybe I should start referring questioners to the About area of this blog. I'm trying to find our why we as a society do not live up to our potential. The fragility of our present circumstance requires some integral and creative answers. We have to create a system that competes with the prevailing system.

Why a "private" hedge club? A public entity requires the oversight of the government. Why anyone would want this government involved in their financial affairs is a mystery to me. Fiscal irresponsibility aside, the government has a "leader" who less than 15 years ago was placed on a board -- through a favor from the well-connected -- and proceeded to distinguish himself during his tenure by telling dirty jokes.

Why a private "hedge" club? Most people have put all their marbles -- literally and figuratively -- in a system that is fraught with corruption and inefficiency. They need to realize that there can be a way to "hedge" the current system. The fragility of the current system is there -- for us all to see -- but yet we remain in a state of denial. (To be up front, this also permits playing the "fear card." A tool that unfortunately seems to be required in order to get the general public's attention.)

Why a private hedge "club"? A private club seems to me to be the only entity that can encompass all of the elements necessary to create a new institution. Education, a physical infrastructure, lack of dogma and doctrine, and longevity. The term "society" works as well but makes it harder to define the rules that are necessary for sustainability.

Primary Hedge Areas

One of the dominant -- read thought-killing -- characteristics of the current system is debt. Debt is all about possessing. The irony is that so long as debt is involved, the system -- not the bank per se -- possesses you. This is unhealthy and one reason -- in my opinion -- for the high levels of depression. (This reminds me of the standard Christian response with respect to the poor: They will always be with us. Baaad Attitude!) If one wants to hedge the current system, one would create an institution in which "banking" is equity only.

As has been pointed out in earlier posts, our education is primarily geared towards producing certified individuals, rather than critical-thinking individuals. Another dominant characteristic of the education system is that it is concerned with turning out folks who work/manipulate behind a desk -- or in a hotel lobby with a laptop -- rather than doing something that is hands-on. In the new global economy, your desk job will soon be done somewhere around the world where the costs are lower. Why would anyone want to sit behind a desk for 8+ hours anyway? The hedge club will commit resources to shaping an education system that includes hands-on activity and real-world projects.

Opportunity, not charity or propaganda. The current system's tax laws either encourage charitable giving or cause (special interest) giving. A hedge club can be structured to encourage members to quit giving to charity and propaganda. Pay your taxes and use the balance to build up equity in a system that builds and provides opportunity, rather than tears down and gives hand-outs.

Anyone who thinks the current system is not sustainable should contact me and make a commitment to help get the ball rolling. Hit the "Email Me" button (above left) and contact me. We can change the course of history this afternoon.

February 05, 2005

From Toynbee's A Study of History (1972 Oxford University Press Edition, ISBN 07-065129-9, 576 pages):

The 'annihilation of distance' by the progress of technology applied to physical means of communication opens up the vista of a future society that will embrace the whole habitable and traversable surface of the planet, together with its air-envelope, and will unite the human race in a single comprehensive society. In such an ecumenical society, diasporas, not territorially compact units, seem likely to be the most important of the global society's component communities, and we may guess that the majority of these future diasporas will not be the products of the dispersal of communities that were originally local, and that they will not be held together by ethnic or even by religious bonds. Their spiritual bond will be some common concern or common profession. The world's physicists already constitute one global diasporan community; the world's musicians are another; the world's physicians and surgeons are in process of becoming a third. Take note of the announcements in the press of the meetings of international conventions, and you will realize that the network of global diasporan communities is growing rapidly in a society in which long-distance telephone calls and air-mail and round-the-world services of passenger-planes are enabling people who have a spiritual affinity with each other, in virtue of sharing some common concern, to communicate and co-operate effectively, wherever their local domiciles may be.

The Jewish diaspora maintained its cohesion for twenty-four centuries, running from the sixth century BC, during which Mankind's physical means of communication were still confined to the wind-power that drove sailing-ships and the muscle-power of donkeys and horses and camels. This astonishing achievement gives the measure of what can be expected in an age in which the physical power of inanimate Nature is being harnessed for human purposes by human technology in an always increasing number of forms.

The accelerating improvement in means of communications of all kinds may do more to promote the creation of diasporas by facilitating it than the Assyrian war-lords were ever able to do by force. In a society that is 'annihilating distance', world-wide diasporas, rather than local national states, look like 'the wave of the future'. The transformation of the world into a cosmopolis favours social organization on a non-local basis. It is a well-known feature of urban life that city-dwellers associate, not with their next-door neighbours, but with kindred spirits scattered all over the metropolitan area. In a village one must consort with one's next-door neighbour, willy-nilly. In a great city with a highly developed transportation system, one has a far wider choice of friends and companions. Now that the world is becoming one city, we may expect to see associations based on neighbourhood come to be overshadowed by others based on spiritual affinity; that is to say, by diasporas in the broadest sense of the term in which this includes ubiquitous scattered minorities that are held together by religious and other ties of all kinds that are independent of locality. [p. 67]

One of the diasporas mentioned by Toynbee will be centered around progress, lifelong learning, and human potential. We need institutions and communities that contribute to the development of individuals that can master the arts and sciences.